Forum Home → Discussion → Other benefit issues → Thread
DS1500?
Just thinking about how is this going to work when there will be two different criteria come April, 12 months for UC and ESA and 6 months for everything else. Are people going to have to ask for 2 different forms to be completed? Is this going to cause confusion at a completely inappropriate time?
[ Edited: 11 Mar 2022 at 09:18 am by Vonny ]As a hospice that completes multiple DS1500’s every week - this is going to cause confusion when explaining to patients & families,
Also confusing for our medical teams who won’t be sure when they should complete a DS1500 - (many unaware of what ESA or UC is!)
will be monitoring this one closely
As a hospice that completes multiple DS1500’s every week - this is going to cause confusion when explaining to patients & families,
Also confusing for our medical teams who won’t be sure when they should complete a DS1500 - (many unaware of what ESA or UC is!)
will be monitoring this one closely
This is exactly what I am concerned about
Just thinking about how is this going to work when there will be two different criteria come April, 12 months for UC and ESA and 6 months for everything else. Are people going to have to ask for 2 different forms to be completed? Is this going to cause confusion at a completely inappropriate time?
The same thought went through my mind yesterday. Perhaps they could revise the form with a six month and a twelve month box. (Not that that would help with the issue of explaining things as raised by SonC.)
I am mindful too that at the moment we often apply for PIP and then expect ESA and/or UC to access the DS1500 through PIP. Now we will potentially be doing ESA and UC rather earlier than PIP.
We also still, in any case, have a mismatch between what benefit regulations say
“Claimant is suffering from a progressive disease and that death in consequence of that disease can reasonably be expected….”
and what guidance to medical staff on completing a DS1500 says
“They have a progressive disease and, as a consequence of that disease you would not be surprised if your patient were to die within 6 months”.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/dwp-factual-medical-reports-guidance-for-healthcare-professionals/dwp-medical-factual-reports-a-guide-to-completion
‘Reasonably be expected to die’ and ‘not surprised if they die’ are very different thresholds.
It’s typical that the government have talked about making this change for a long time (much longer than originally promised) but still haven’t issued any guidance to accompany the change.
[ Edited: 11 Mar 2022 at 04:38 pm by Ianb ]https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1055825/adm-03-22.pdf
And I hope that DWP provide better guidance than for the claimant commitment